The fire in the grate...

[Sam Flynn]

This is from the inquest testimony recorded by the morning advertiser on the 13th. The advertiser seemed very thorough in their inquest coverage, sometimes mentioning titbits not seen elsewhere.

Indeed, Kevin - I've found that the Morning Advertiser's coverage often repays scrutiny for that very reason.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Bolo,

Yep, that's why Mary draped her clothes "neatly" folded over the back of the chair

The use of the adverb "neatly" in respect of Mary's clothing seems to have crept into Ripper lore in the latter half of the 20th Century. But that's for another thread

[perrymason]

To address both yours Don, and Sams rebuttal....I have done this very experiment using charcoal base fires, and wood based fires, using velvet, pure wool and cotton clothing.

What Sam describes, putting either wool, velvet or cotton clothing, or a chunk of some fossil fuel on a fossil fuel based fire that has been untended since Mary went out, and creating light from that within a short period of time, is near impossible, without an accelerant. And the resulting smoke in that space if not properly vented would have killed her.

If Marys fire was fossil fuel...which is the most reasonable guess considering her means, it was a hearth for warmth, ..not light to read or entertain by. Unless fed wood, paper, or an accelerant.

Her full candle purchased that week was half burned, which sounds like it could have been burning from 11:45 until just before 1:30 when its blown out.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

What Sam describes

...is poking a fire to get some warmth into the room, simultaneously causing the fire to brighten for a while. Sam is not describing...

putting either wool, velvet or cotton clothing, or a chunk of some fossil fuel on a fossil fuel based fire that has been untended since Mary went out.

I wouldn't quite agree with this either...

and creating light from that within a short period of time, is near impossible, without an accelerant. And the resulting smoke in that space if not properly vented would have killed her.

...which represents a teensy bit of exaggeration on your part, mayhap?

Of course the light from a bright fire may be glimpsed through the gaps in a curtain, or a coat slung loosely against a window pane - which is all I said. I also said that it doesn't materially matter whether the source of light was a candle or a fire, at the point at which Cox saw it - so there's really no need for you to wheel out the "impossible" and "lethal fumes" cards at all.

[perrymason]

Ok Sam, fair complaints.

But I think it is material what the source of that light was seen by Cox, because if its fire based, and it was bright when Cox saw it, it will still be bright even if Mary decides to sleep before 1:30.

That is not consistent with a light seen by Cox on her way out, and none seen by Prater on her way up.

Best regards Sam.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

It was Abberline's contention that the fire in Room 13 provided light for the murderer to see what he was doing. At a glance, it makes sense.

What doesn't make sense were the materials [fuel] at hand for providing that light. Clothes tend to smoulder rather than burn brightly. There is also the logistical problem of the murderer having to maintain a suitable light level whilst carrying out his dastardly deeds. Constantly stoking the fire must have been a source of frustration—maintaining maximum light whilst taking care not to burn the house down. And why not move the kettle out of the way? Also, whilst we're at it, why not burn the pilot coat found in Room 13?

Come to think of it, why not burn Millers Court to the ground? Charred remains—nobody recognizable—job done. But no, the murderer leaves the disfigured corpse for someone to conveniently discover at a premium moment and is never heard from again. At the very least I'd have thought Millers Court, the murderer's "triomphe de la période", worthy of another missive to Central News.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

But I think it is material what the source of that light was seen by Cox, because if its fire based, and it was bright when Cox saw it, it will still be bright even if Mary decides to sleep before 1:30.

No, it won't, unless Mary decided to stoke it or poke it again, to cause it to flare up just at the moment when Prater fleetingly walked past the partition on her way to bed.

That is not consistent with a light seen by Cox on her way out, and none seen by Prater on her way up.

But, as I said earlier, the default for a coal fire is a muted orange glow, Prater would only fleetingly have been in a position to catch even the brightest glow as she headed up the wooden hill to crash out in bed, and Cox would only have been in a favourable position to see the light in the window (as she testifies) if she were heading out of the Court and staring the windows straight between the - um - panes.

Oy!

[bolo]

Just came back from re-reading Sugden's and Begg's chapters on MJK and found that I've mixed up the bit about the pieces of clothing that were in Mary's room at that night. Of course they were not given to her by Joe but Maria Harvey left them there... god I'm a n00b... Ah well, I blame it on the beer... don't drink and post, eh...

According to Sugden, Abberline found a piece of velvet and the charred frame (or brim?) of a woman's felt hat when he sieved the ashes on Sunday, various press reports speak of other pieces of clothing such as remnants of a skirt.

Sugden also hints that the clothes may have been found and removed by the police, at least they did with the coat Harvey left at Miller's Court 13.

Another thing that bugs me is the fact that a laundress like Harvey leaves clothes in Mary's room to be washed. Anyone care to fill me in on that?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Bolo

Another thing that bugs me is the fact that a laundress like Harvey leaves clothes in Mary's room to be washed. Anyone care to fill me in on that?

We don't know that Harvey left them there to be washed by Kelly - only that they were "to be washed": she doesn't specify by whom. This might have meant that Harvey left them with Kelly for safe keeping, intending to pick them up the next day, in order to wash them herself. Indeed, the Times states that Harvey had left the clothing "in the care of the deceased". There are quite a few reasons why she may have needed to do this - e.g. Harvey was expecting company, she mistrusted her fellow lodgers at New Court, etc.

[perrymason]

Didnt appreciate the tone Sam.

The ONLY evidence of any kind of fire that night is ash and fabric remnants...clearing showing that the fire was not hot enough or had enough open flame to consume the fabric completely. That suggests a low, hot fire, created by coal or fossil fuels...the cheapest fuel sources. Which is entirely consistent with the kind of fire one would want to continually boil water, perhaps for washing. That kind of fire does not produce much if any light, and when untended, would simmer without emitting any light.

Period Clothing that is thrown on an untended fossil fuel fire, would smoulder and smoke, but produce little if any light.

There is no evidence that a large bright fire existed that specific night at all, there are speculative comments made by a Senior investigator...the same one who puts his foot in again that same day by buying Hutchinson's story. No-one knows when the spout was melted, nor do fabric remnants in the ash suggest a fire hot or bright enough to consume it completely. They could have been tossed on a low fire, and smouldered there all morning,...never emitting light.

We know a light was seen after Mary came home, seems you think its more reasonable to think that was fireflies from the ash stirring,.. than the lighting of a candle, which was the main source of light in the room at night, as in most homes in the area at the time. To each his own.

We also know the light was not seen by 1:30. Nor was any light seen by anyone again...if a large bright fire happened at all, it happened after Mary Ann is finished and in the court....at around 3am. Because she would clearly have seen light cast upon the white wall opposite her Marys windows.

Youve dismissed the value of every eye witness to the condition of Marys room that night Sam. People in the court, people who knew her, people walking right past her door.

Thats your business....but mocking my account that fits the known evidence doesnt make your own opinions more sound. Nor does it make Abberline a misunderstood fire expert.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Didnt appreciate the tone Sam.

My tone was one of frustration, not anger, and neither am I mocking - I'm pointing out basic truths, Mike.

But, as you bring up appreciation or lack thereof, I have to say that I don't appreciate being gainsaid by spurious counter-arguments and assertions.

[Supe]

Michael,

My tone, as well, is one of frustrastion. We have been over the separation of the spout from the kettle body (almost certainly the solder melted, not the spout), the limited utility of a spoutless kettle, the purposelessness of keeping spout and kettle together on the fire and the very good reasons Abberline might have had to think the damage to the kettle had occurred that night to no avail. Clearly, you prefer to consider Abberline a blithering idiot and, moreover, one who was at the scene as opposed to you (and, admittedly, all the rest of us on the message boards). You are free to do so, but I no longer choose to discuss it with you.

And by the way, coal IS a fossil fuel; wood, which I assume was your alternative, is not.

Finally, I throw out a different possibility to everyone. Could it be that we are looking at things backwards? That is, might Jack have placed clothes on the fire not for added light (or heat) but to actually lower the level of light by damping it? That could account for the fire smoulodering away.

Don.

[Christine]

Michael,

Finally, I throw out a different possibility to everyone. Could it be that we are looking at things backwards? That is, might Jack have placed clothes on the fire not for added light (or heat) but to actually lower the level of light by damping it? That could account for the fire smoulodering away.

Don.

Now that's an interesting idea. Order these events chronologically: Jack enters the room, the fire is started, the kettle boils dry and starts to melt, someone puts the clothes on the fire, Jack leaves.

Was there tea in the room? Why did someone put the kettle on the fire in the first place?

[perrymason]

Don,

I read your reasoning on the kettle, and the coal, and I did realize coal was a fossil fuel when I wrote it...since it or dung was far more likely than wood.

Your idea of smothering, not stoking the fire, is exactly what I alluded to, based on a low fire and period fabrics.

And I never said Abberline was an idiot, just that he was no expert opinion on when the kettle spout solder became useless as you say, or the fire and its potential light emitting properties. He guessed.

And the spout and a "bright" fire have no direct relationship...a relatively lightless low fire could have provided longer term heat and more likely have caused the fault.

Best regards.

[Magpie]

Finally, I throw out a different possibility to everyone. Could it be that we are looking at things backwards? That is, might Jack have placed clothes on the fire not for added light (or heat) but to actually lower the level of light by damping it? That could account for the fire smoulodering away.

Don.

Good thought, Don!